Posted
by
ScuttleMonkeyon Wednesday February 20, 2008 @01:11PM
from the thinking-of-the-voters-not-the-children dept.

anonymous_echidna writes "Florida has voted to accept the new K-12 science curriculum standards amidst a storm of controversy around the teaching of evolution, which had up until now been the scientific concept that dare not speak its name. There was a compromise made at the last minute, which was to call evolution a 'scientific theory', rather than a fact. While some lament that the change displays the woeful ignorance of science and scientific terminology, the good news is that the new curriculum emphasizes teaching the meaning of scientific terms and the scientific method in earlier grades."

It's not really a question of religion, if you think about it--it's more a question of politics.

It just happens that the politics involved are largely being used within the framework of religion in order to maintain a certain population within a given power structure, and to resist attempts to overturn said power structure from the outside.

So true. This is a prime example of the difference between how science works and how religion works. Simply put, science = (observation + disprovable theories). If your theory conforms to the observations under certain conditions, you can apply that theory again as long as the conditions are met.

The driving force behind religion is - in my opinion - social pressure. If your parents are christian, you'll be a christian too. Not because it is testable that it is the only true religion, but a) because you are indoctrinated from day one, and b) because your environment won't allow you to think differently. You won't "fit in" anymore. Just think what happens when two people with different religions want to mary. In extremis, even today, young people are killed by their own family because they want to mary somebody with a different belief. Now that's an extreme case, but it clearly shows how strong social pressure can be. The family rather kills it's own than to have to go through the shame. The individual feels the pressure of the family, and the family feels the pressure of the community.

That's why they want to propagate ID by law instead of scientific proof. It's totally in line with how religion works.

Finally, individual teachers have a lot of leeway in what they teach; science teachers will teach evolution with the certainty that they feel it's due, no matter what guidelines have been set down.

Not if they want to keep their jobs they won't. With school boards and school administrators unsympathetic to the teaching of evolution, while the teaching of evolution is not banned, parent complaints will give them a reason to find some other convenient excuse to fire the teacher. For example, a Texas science director [wired.com] was canned because of her pro-evolution stance. The official reason: insubordination because she used her work email to forward a federal court judgment on evolution to friends and some online communites. Every teacher has done something similar and having a pro-evolution viewpoint will give the school administrators an excuse to find anything incriminating.

Theory means more than one thing, and even a lot of scientists can't elucidate the difference.

Def 1:"hunch" "guess" or "hypothesis". This is the sense that creationists mean when they say "evolution is just a theory". It's not technically correct to use theory this way in science, but people (even scientists) do all the time when speaking colloquially. ("If my theory is correct...") This is a problem - scientists should be careful not to speak this way, and when they do, they muddy the waters and make openings for the creationists.

Def 2:A model that explains all the known facts and has survived at least some testing. "The theory of evolution" and "the theory of special relativity", as phrases, mean this kind of theory. Unfortunately, theories of this definition vary quite a bit in their level of confidence and/or the amount of testing they have undergone.

Def 3:A set of principles, assumptions, and a body of work underlying a certain field. What exists when a def 2 theory has been confirmed so well and so long that it is assumed as true and used as the base principles for an entire field of scientific endeavor. Examples: "Evolutionary theory" is the understanding of DNA, mutation, genetics, heritability, natural selection and evolutionary descent that gives the inseparable background for all of biology. "Atomic theory" is the understanding of atom structure, valence electron, orbitals, quantum states, and bonds that underlies all of chemistry.

Science is a century past def. 2 "the theory of evolution" and long since completely employing def. 3 "evolutionary theory".

The key thing about a Type 3 theory is that it is so key to its field that it has become inseparable. Trying to understand contemporary research in biology while "rejecting evolution" is 100% as stupid as trying to understand chemistry while "rejecting the atom".

Atomic and Evolutionary theory are quite parallel: both arose as type 2 theories in the 19th century, replacing prior assumptions held by most knowledgeable people (special creation and infinitely divisible matter), and through decades of continuously accumulated support and evidence became essentially irrefutable type 3 theories by early in the 20th century. Both actually had inklings all the way back to the ancient Greeks but didn't become coherent (def. 2) theories until missing pieces and observations were filled in by Rutherford and Darwin.

When talking to creationists I often employ the analogy of a faith that demanded that atoms aren't real and that matter is continuously divisible because some allegorical section of their holy book could be read that way. It's easy to imagine:

"And on the second day, The Lord took the clay he had created and divided it in two, and again to make four, and again indefinitely until he had enough lumps of clay. And he fashioned their myriads into the earth, and the stars, and the waters, and the clouds, and every living thing, and every stone, and every grain of sand."

Suppose such a faith demanded that science classes miseducate their children with that obviously unsupportable position based on that one passage of text. That would only be conceivable to people who really don't understand the facts (if the atom isn't real, how in hell did we make the atomic bomb?), and it would be hazardous to our kids.

To anyone who understands biology, creationism is misguided on a nearly identical level. (if evolution isn't real, why do genetic drift/mutation accumulation, genetic structure analysis, morphological structure analysis, and the fossil record *all* produce a broadly similar tree of life? Why do we find literally billions of fossils of extinct intermediate species that fit that tree? Why do we find that every structure both macroscopic and microscopic looks like an adapted version of some preexisting structure that filled a different role?)

If God exists, He used evolution in the same way he used atoms. End of story.

but without being able to see the process in nature, it is difficult to justify calling it scientific fact.

Yeah, because without all those fossils showing us the evolution of a horse or human, there would be no way to show the evolutionary process in action. And let's not forget the different shapes of the beaks of the birds that Darwin studied. Those certainly don't show any kind of evolutionary action.

Why do people keep insisting that Evolution, the act itself, isn't a fact? If there were no fact, then there wouldn't be a theory. The only reason theories come about is because of a fact.

The biggest problem with this whole "it's just a theory" argument is that the word "theory" is ambiguous. It's just like "free speech" vs. "free beer".

In science "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. A theory is a logical explanation or a testable model for a given natural phenomenon.

In common language, however, theory refers to conjecture or opinion. Thus the confusion.

String theory is the former, but it is incomplete. It has yet to be adopted by the scientific community as a proven theory because there are no accepted methods of testing it. In other words, it is a work in progress. To nitpick about calling string theory a "theory" is like nitpicking about a computer program that isn't finished being coded yet being called a "computer program". No matter which side of the fence you decide to sit on you'll be right. It's not technically a program yet because it's incomplete. But to say that it's not a program raises the question of what to call it.

It's the best scientific explanation we have right now for the facts that are evident. However, the theory of evolution has itself evolved over the last hundred years. It's not a static thing, and it should continue to be refined as more evidence presents itself. Evolution will never be a scientific fact, at least until we can build time machines that will let us go back to study man in his
There are very few facts in science. That gravity pulls objects toward the center of the earth at 32ft/s^2 is a fact.

Erm, except there are fish that have both gills and lungs. Lungs are a gas permeable extension of the gut that developed independantly of gills. In some cases, the animals found the shallows to be preferable and those with superior gas transfer developed lungs. In those animals that didn't, the organ developed into the gas bladder, allowing them to absorb gas into and excrete gas from the blood stream to control density.

Pick a harder one, like why the human retina is such a lousy design and that of the octopus is so much better.

This creature normally uses its gills for respiration, but is also capable of taking in oxygen from the air when water quality is poor, or there are low dissolved oxygen levels, such as when water temperatures are high during summer.

Cool, but you still haven't proven how a fish can grow lungs without compromising it's current breathing system.

I'm not sure what I'm missing. I gave you an example of a fish that can breath air, as well as using gills to extract free oxygen from water. I've proven to you that such an animal is possible, what more do you need?

There is no fact behind the Theory of Evolution in relation to the creation of different species.

You are mistaken.

It has been proven that genetic mutations exist, and that they cause illness and deformations, but not that they have the ability to create limbs, wings, lungs, etc. in perfect working order.

You are mistaken.

One thing that I am constantly amazed about is that people implant their own logic into Evolution; DNA does not have an agenda. It does not wake up one day and say "over the next 100 generations, I'm going to grow wings and fly!".

No one says that, except the people who are mistaken about what evolution is, what the theory proposes, and how it is tested. People like the ones you got your mistaken information from.

Charles Darwin wrote....

Something, I am sure. But Charles Darwin is not the last word in evolution or natural selection, anymore than Newton is the last word on gravity. Can you at least update your criticisms to refer to science done in the 20th and 21st centuries? A lot of ground has been covered since Darwin.

It is a HUGE leap from this to saying that "We all came from fish".

No one says that. But fish and humans have a common ancestor, which was not a fish nor was it a human.

It is not correct to look at fossils and assume that one came from another because they look similar.

Of course. And no one does that.

You have some very fuzzy and shadowy ideas about what scientists do, and how they come to the conclusions they do. I suggest you do some reading of works by scientists who do evolution, not any more reading of works by preachers debunking it with folklore and thought experiments.

.........anymore than Newton is the last word on gravity.........Well I have news for you. Newton STILL is the last word on gravity for our our frame of existence. Now if you can get near the speed of light, then some of the additional effects that Einstein theorized may come into effect. Nobody has been able to test that part of Einstein's theory yet. So for now, Newton's apple still falls as he said it does.

Science will not ever be able to convert Big-E evolution into a fact, since there is no method of proving how something DID happen, only ways to show how it COULD HAVE happened.

Science will never convert evolution (whether you use a big e or a little e) into a fact, because in science all explanations and generalizations are theories. Facts are observations, like "All known differences between the DNA of different vertebrate species are of the type created by mutation." Any interpretation, e.g. "These facts

We see the theory of gravity in operation, although it too is referred to as a theory. We do not see the tectonic plates move continents across the ocean, although we know it happened. Just because you cannot actually witness firsthand the process of evolution creating new species, it does not give the theory of evolution any less credibility that any other scientific idea. We can observe that evolution has occurred, and quantify the rate at which it occurs. We have models of evolution and have tested those models against the available scientific evidence (hint: it's caused by genetic mutation of DNA at a measurable rate, and the fossil evidence matches our predictions).

We can observe that evolution has occurred, and quantify the rate at which it occurs. We have models of evolution and have tested those models against the available scientific evidence (hint: it's caused by genetic mutation of DNA at a measurable rate, and the fossil evidence matches our predictions).

There is plenty of non fossil data. Most obviously from domestic animal/plant breeding and parasites becoming resistant to drugs.Possibly the issue here is that there are people who dislike the idea of human

The naysayers say that the non-fossil data is micro-evolution, and that we have no evidence for macro-evolution, the creation and divergence of new species. That makes as much sense as saying that you believe the continents move several inches per year, but that we don't know that the continents have really moved thousands of miles. By the magic of multiplication, we can tell that several inches per year over the course of many millions of years means that they have indeed moved thousands of miles. Similarl

It is also a HUGE leap to go from saying that earthquakes move parts of the earth mere inches or feet at a time to saying that the continents repeatedly go around the globe and run into each other. However, if you consider the timescales involved and work out the math, you find that the small earthquakes build up over time to move the plates around. Similarly, genetic mutations build up over time to create limbs, wings, lungs, etc. Scientists measure the amount of genetic variation between species, calculat

Actually, there are more (and bigger) problems with our current understanding of gravity than with evolution. General relativity is our "theory of gravity" that you speak of -- but it's incomplete. Quantum mechanics has been shown time and again to be correct, but general relativity and QM are fundamentally incompatible without changes to one or both. There are real scientific problems with the theory of gravity; on the other hand, the only challenges to evolution are, by definition, unscientific. If yo

Please go look up what "theory" means in science.EVERY description of how things work in science is a theory. This does not mean it is not also a fact. The only things that are called "laws" are only called that for historical reasons; if thermodynamics were developed today it would be called a theory.Any theory can be disproven at any time by presenting a contradictory, repeatable example. If a contradictory example is given, then the theory can either be modified or replaced. Theories can never by abs

I am a scientist, and I know that in science, "theory" means any generalization or explanation that is well supported by experimental or observational evidence.A "tautology," of course, is a statement that logically must be true, so any valid mathematical equatioin or logical proof is a tautology. Since a scientific theory must be logical, it necessarily contains embedded within it one or more tautologies, but it goes beyond that in that its conclusions constitute predictions about the physical world that

No one has witnessed Macro-Evolution (changes from one species to another).

There is no difference between the two, they are not separate theories or separate observations. It's like saying we can observe that a single photon travels at speed c, but we haven't observed 10 million photons traveling at c, so we don't have to believe it can happen.

Until you prove that the mechanism for "micro-evolution" is different than the mechanism for "macro-evolution", then belief one is belief in both.

Actually no I hadn't. You are the first person to present me with actual examples of reproductively isolated speciation. I retract my previous statements about having no observed examples of one species evolving into another.

G, the gravitational constant, was discovered by Newton, not Einstein.

The other main issue is the value of G. 6.67 * 10^-11 is an awful number that Einstein hated. This was one of reasons why he spent the entire rest of his life searching for something better in the form of a Grand Theory of Everything. Unfortunately he never found it.

Einstein didn't hate the gravitational constant, he hated his Cosmological Constant [wikipedia.org], which he only needed because he was trying to create a static universe, which later observations proved was not the case, so it turns out he never needed it in the first place.

This only predicts the attractive force between two bodies (m1, m2), if you try and apply it to three bodies you have to approximate two of the bodies into one. Sometimes this works well but sometimes it falls down.

Not at all, you simply run the calculation for A-B, B-C and C-A, then the "net" force on B is "A-B + B-C". You can do this for as many bodies as you wish.

Actually there are many theories of gravity. To the best of my knowledge, there is the relativistic theory, a classical quantum mechanical theory, many variations of string theory, and several others like loop quantum gravity. The problem is that there isn't any one theory that can explain the all of the same phenomena.

These all differ from hypotheses because they are more than just a prediction of the outcome of a test, but an explanation for why we should expect that outcome.

Yes, there is a law of gravity, and it is WRONG. However it is still a good rule of thumb for work in systems smaller than say, our solar system. Newton's law was unable to explain the orbit of Mercury using the law of gravity, because the distance is great enough that relativity comes into play.

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is a theory of gravity. It replaced Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. The theory is backed up by sufficient observation (the precession of Mercury, gravitational lensing) to have replaced the law.There are aesthetic reasons to be unsatisfied with Einstein's Theory. It is difficult to reconcile with quantum mechanics. And there are nagging difficulties with the brightness of Type 1A Supernova and the red and blue shifts of receding and approaching sides of gal

Actually, there is no theory of gravity yet. There is a law of gravity. There are hypotheses about how gravity exists or is propagated. None of these hypotheses have sufficient observations in their favor to promote one to the rank of theory.

I can understand the confusion here, given the really inconsistent use of terminology (conjecture, hypothesis, theory, law) by scientists, but who the hell modded this informative??? Mods, if you don't know anything about a subject then you probably should refrain

I'm disheartened that the parent is currently +5 Insightful instead of -1 Flamebait. I try to stay out of these sorts of threads nowadays, but this is simply ridiculous.

Anything that starts with some "There's some invisible guy, up in the sky, who can kill you, because he loves you" is deeply, persistently and fundamentally fucked up.

Agreed, but this is a straw man summary of Christianity. Some fundamentalist sects are getting closer and closer to matching it, but the only people who do are the Westboro Baptists, and you'll see them denounced by the overwhelming majority of Christians.

Creationism is merely an expression of how fucked up it is.

This doesn't follow. Care to elaborate and earn that Insightful mod? Creationism

The equivalency of validity between scientific theory (based on evidence, tested by observation, and refined to match the observe phenomenon) and belief (backed up by nothing more than "I said so") has gone too far in this world. I make the stand, not out of arrogance, but out of outrage. Belief != Search for Truth. Belief != Truth. Belief != Philosophical Introspection. Belief != Model of the Universe.

Unless you have EVIDENCE to offer for your claims, I say shove them. Even a well reasoned argument will suffice. But if your theory requires acoutremant like an omniscient daddy sitting in the sky tossing death rays down at us to make it work with no particular need for him given the observed phenomenon, then it is quite frankly invalid. Now, you can preach to those mistaken fools who are silly enough to swallow your garbage, but quit equating what you do to science and philosophy.

Religion is actually just politics with an invisible leader. The power seekers in religion want to be second in command.

It works out great. By being second in command you get all the power and its trappings, great food, great sex, great place to live and the best part is you can pass the buck to the guy in charge if things seem to be going awry. It's actually a much better thought out scam than politics.

I'd be all for it if it wasn't for this demand of universal ignorance they call faith.

NOMA [wikipedia.org]sucks! It's pussing out of the issue because you are afraid someone will pull out the "Oh I'm offended" card. F*** 'em. Let 'em be offended. 1/2 the time they're not offended, but hoping to shut people up be pretending to be. It's called lies and manipulation

If you're religion says man was made of dirt that was created with the rest of the universe 6000 years ago by an invisible sky ghost in only 144 hours, then there IS conflict between science and religion.

There was a compromise made at the last minute, which was to call evolution a 'scientific theory', rather than a fact.

LOL! I can't believe that an actual state school board resolution has basically the same wording as when I troll. (Er, I mean, my *friend* trolls.) "Hey guys, now, let's face it, evolution is pretty much just a theory at this point. You know, THEORY? Theory as in... NOT FACT?"

Still, I think it would be an improvement of orders of magnitude if science classes in general focused more on:

"how did we learn this?" (i.e., the scientific method, how observations have to be done to eliminate bias, the formulation of competing theories, how experiments are designed, how hypotheses were ruled out, etc.)

as opposed to:

"here is he official list of truth that you have to memorize and then do cute IQ-test-like problems with".

The latter gives the wrong impression of what science is and why it matters.

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Now, remember, Gravity is just a theory as well, so why don't you test it by jumping out off of a very tall building.

There are quite a few "theories" that have been taken as fact, such as the concept of "races" in the single human race. Despite the fact that the idea of race is based on viable offspring interbreeding ablity some insist that varitial==race. Go figure.

Race: "a group of persons related by common descent or heredity." Species: "Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species." funwithBSD: "An individual who needs to buy a dictionary."

There have been too many occasions where the news media has persisted in "dumbing down" the terminology that they use. I even remember watching a "Faith and Values" show on CNN last year where John Edwards (the candidate, not the psychic) was asked his thoughts on Evolution which, in the words of Soledad O'brien, was the belief that man evolved from apes.

We need the news media to take the lead in helping people understand what a theory is vs. a hypothesis. How fact and theory are not opposites. The fact that a "law" is not the opposite of a theory. Too many people are getting away with murder in these debates because the termnology isn't clearly understood and the news media doesn't care to straighten it out.

Dude, nail on the head. I don't believe that the news media is "dumbing down" their language to make it more accessible to viewers, I've always just assumed they don't have a sufficient understanding of basic science to pose good questions. I think back to college, and frankly the journalism students didn't seem to be taking many elective science courses. The journalism community as a whole doesn't seem to have a very good understanding of the scientific method. On the other hand, there are a good num

asked his thoughts on Evolution which, in the words of Soledad O'brien, was the belief that man evolved from apes.

Speaking of "dumbing down", you have no idea what's going on, do you?

Referring to Evolution in this way and then asking an opinion (or the reverse) is an example of deliberate spin. You would never say that unless you wanted to get the "I didn't come from no monkey!" camp riled up, or you were an uneducated buffoon.

P.S. Jesus Christ, that woman looks like Ms. The Joker when she smiles. Plastic surgery, or inbreeding? YOU DECIDE!

You would never say that unless you wanted to get the "I didn't come from no monkey!" camp riled up, or you were an uneducated buffoon.

Or you were tossing a softball.

"Why, yes, O'Brien, according to our best evidence we did descend from apes - mor precisely, we and modern apes descended from a common, ape-like ancestor. And I'm proud of how far our species has developed, how far up from the muck we've come, how far towards grace we've climbed; and I hope that our umptity-great grandchildren will be as far above us as we are above the Australopithecines. My opponent the Biblical literalist, on the other hand, seems to hold that we're all the fallen result of incestuous inbreeding from a single original pair of idiots dumb enough to be fooled by a talking snake. I've got to say I find the scientific account not only more rational, but orders of magnitude more inspiring."

There was an interesting interview on PBS by Bill Moyers the other night. He was interviewing Susan Jacoby [susanjacoby.com] who was hawking her newest book "The Age of American Unreason".

She, also, blamed, partly (among other things she was discussing in the interview), the media for this sort of stupidity. She said the media has gone too far with its equal treatment of different sides of each issue. She said that sometimes one side is right and the other wrong, and giving the wrong side equal weight is not really serving t

I have a hobby where I argue with various fundamentalists, creationists, and the like in order to understand their particular points of view--using them as an evolutionary pressure for my arguments, as it were, to see which ones have an effect.

I've noticed in my various arguments that the chief difficulty is getting them to understand the terminology behind the concepts--they simply do not have the vocabulary necessary to vocalize and understand the concepts in question.

One of those words that is most egregiously misused is "theory"--the "common" form of the word is almost universally understood, but the "scientific" meaning of the word, even when carefully explained, becomes conflated with the common form.

(Other difficulties I've noticed are: that those who do not accept evolutionary theory are convinced that evolution is directed towards some 'goal'; that all mutations are necessarily harmful; an ignorance of introns and other means by which genetic material can be added to a genome--one of the current arguments that crops up is the one about how you can't get more information into a genome by evolutionary means, which is, of course, utter bosh; a misunderstanding of the scientific method; the false notion that science attempts to be the Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything rather than a best-fit approximation; and the notion that scientists are trying actively to discourage religion)

Other than teaching the proper meaning of the word 'theory'--which doesn't work very well, frankly; the meaning that they knew first tends to stick no matter how often you teach them the proper one due to recency bias--I'd perhaps recommend a slight change in terminology when speaking of hypotheses that have withstood rigorous testing. Such a change would, of course, have to be accepted by the scientific community as a whole, so it may not be practical--but it's perhaps worth giving some thought to.

I'd almost recommend 'theorem' rather than 'theory', to leech off of the mathematician's meaning, but while that word is appealing for reasons of similarity and having the proper tone, it may not be ideal due to conflation with mathematical proofs.

Now I'm going to get myself into trouble.Because my understanding (as a scientist) has always been that all science was theory - scientific theory and not fact. Some scientific theories, like evolution, have so much evidence that they may as well be fact - but they're still technically not fact.

And like you said gravity is a theory. The fact there is that when I let go of an apple it ends up on the ground, that's the fact - the most sensible theory that explains that fact and other related facts is the th

Thank you for that. Both sides of this debate drive me crazy as they're both hanging on to their beliefs with religious fervor. Natural selection IS a theory, and most likely there is still a mechanism for change we don't know about. Likewise we still only see macro exolution in the fosil record and haven't observed it in living animals. The fact that science doen't have all the answers doesn't bother me one bit. It's a process. I don't see the need to get defensive about it. Either the scientific method stands on it's own merrits or it's time to look for something else.

It reminds me of a line from Steven Colbert talking about the "Half Hour News Hour." Something to the effect of "you really need to be on one side or the other because it's hard to be passionately moderate."

If you don't believe in gravity being a fact, please jump off a 42 story building.

A fact is what you have observed. A theory is an explanation of why it is so.

In the strictest sense, the fact is that you have always (previously) observed that objects fall to the ground. But in order to link that fact to your prediction that he will fall to the ground after jumping off a building, you have to have a theory of gravity that predicts how a novel event (i.e., the grandparent poster jumping off a 42 story building) will unfold in the future.

Put more succintly: "Objects thrown off a building have always fallen" is a statement of fact. "Objects thrown off a building will always fall" is a hypothesis derived from a theory.

Isn't the proper terminology "law"? As in the "Law of Gravity" to related to observed and/or measured facts about the world? Theories are a description of why a law exists (Theories about gravity are actually surprisingly weak at this point. We don't really have a good understanding of why gravity works). We have observed that species change over time (short timescales with small and simple organisms like bacteria, longer timescales for larger and more complex life like Dinosaurs). Evolution is the theory that describes why we think that happens.

Before people go nuts however, I'd like to point out that Creationism is not a theory, or a law, or anything to do with science.

You seem to think that calling something a "theory" is a negative thing, or suggests that it's likely false. Science doesn't really have any "laws" - Newton's laws are CALLED laws but they're really theories, like everything else. It's entirely possible that someone will come up with a better explanation of inertia next week, for instance. We're always refining our knowledge of gravity- and evolutionary theory is still young compared to gravity. To suggest that we have a 100% accurate, immutable, flawless understanding of evolution is nothing less than blind arrogance. By saying this am I suggesting that the theory of evolution is untrue? Not at all.

A theory is a statement that has been supported by evidence from repeatable experiments and can be used to make accurate predictions that can be borne out by experiment.

No its not--what you describe is a good theory--like evolution or general relativity. Bad theories exist as well (ones that were falsified or that just no longer make sense--like the "aether"), or even theories that I couldn't really say are good or bad (ones which remain untested, or are difficult to use in the formation of testable hypotheses--like string theory).

Not sure how evolution is classified anymore, but that gravity exists is indeed a fact. The only question we still have is WHY it exists, as in what causes it.

That's one of the tricks when using 'gravity' as part of a discussion regarding 'evolution'. The existance of both is proven. The 'why' of gravity has not yet been proven. But that is a MUCH different 'why' than the 'why' of evolution.

Gravitation is much closer to mathematics than evolution. I'm sure we can agree that if we are to discover the '

During more than two hours of testimony, scientists and religious representatives argued over whether teaching that humans evolved from a single-celled species over hundreds of millions of years should be taken as gospel.

Not sure that's the word said scientists would use in this context themselves...

Evolution is a fact. For example dinosaurs used to exist and they don't now; horses, dogs and cats have changed. This is accepted by everyone. What is in dispute is the explanation for that evolution. It could be caused by natural selection or by something else (certainly by something else in the case of the three animals mentioned). Natural selection is a scientific theory. So be careful with the terminology.

"Certainly"? Not certainly. Natural selection is the process by which some animals survive better than others by having certain traits. Horses that run faster are less likely to meet the glue factory before reproduction than slower horses, for example. It's still 'natural selection', it's just that environment has changed.Cats and dogs go through similar things.

Assuming 'natural selection' is true and not a false hypothesis, this fits the pattern. If it's false, then this may not be the same thing at a

Control the meaning of words, you control how they're percieved. For instance, most if not all the old Soviet republics considered themselves 'democratic' in that elections were held on a regular basis. Of course, there was only one slate of candidates to elect, so calling them 'democracies' was a bit of a misnomer. Likewise, their penchant for putting "People's' in front of just about everything, like 'People's Democratic Republic of'. Double whammy there...

Now, if the definition of 'approved' now means 'guaranteed not to piss off any J Random NeoCon Fundie', and 'theory' now means 'something that cannot be proved but must be taken on faith', we're in serious trouble here...

This is actually a good thing. A good theory stands up to scrutiny. There is not such thing as "ridiculous" challenge. Any challenge which does not deny rules of logic or observed facts has merit. If students are instilled with an extra degree of scepticism, I'd say, "good for them." Dogmatic teaching of scince as facts creates nothing but fudder for pop-culture -- it does not produce thinking minds.

The highest honor SCIENCE can bestow any idea is that of the "Theory". Science cannot claim anything to be a fact because in science, nothing is beyond disproval.

If science starts stating things are fact, and beyond disproval then the idea in question becomes dogma. Dogma is the realm of religion. Science may be your religion, but you do science a great disservice by making it so, at the expense of the scientific schema and method.

I know that the creationist/ID crowd LOVES to rub it in that evolution "is only a theory", but you've got to resist the temptation of fighting back by out-dogma-ing the dogmatists.

Evolution IS only a theory, it's among the most widely studied and tested theories of science. It's the single unifying theory of biology. Everyone say it with me: Evolution IS just a theory. The 800lb Gorrilla, bad-mother-fucker, stomp your colon theory. The king of theories.

In science, that's as good as it gets. And as science-minded people, we should know that.

Sorry, evolution is not the "king of theories". Its a good theory, but definitely not the best.The BEST theories have equations and calculations that come with them (some of these are commonly called "Laws"). Gravity and thermodynamics and relativity, and many many others have whole sets of equations that can describe and predict the factually observed behavior. Now with hard core gene sequencing and manipulation we're closer than ever to being able to do X and expect Y, but so far there are no "laws" of

The Roman Catholic church has recognized evolution essentially as fact and completely compatible with the bible. So I don't really understand what the problem is with Protestants in this country.

The only reason I see for this idiotic push to marginalize evolution and push creationism as a valid theory is because Christian conservatives see their influence on American culture slipping. This is a desperate attempt to make their religion relevant. I don't understand how this is permitted.

Evolution is a science. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science and have no place in the science class. Those concepts don't conform to the standards established by science. There is a place for creationism, and that's the theology class.

If parents want to compromise their children's education they should do so in private schools or at home instead of trying to force this stupidity on everyone.

The only reason I see for this idiotic push to marginalize evolution and push creationism as a valid theory is because Christian conservatives see their influence on American culture slipping.

That, at least to me, is the interesting bit.

On the one hand, we're in the middle of an election cycle where there's serious issues with which to contend, and on the other hand, we have a vocal block of people and their elected representatives whose primary concerns are abortion, gay marriage and the teaching of evolut

Evolution is the least popular theory ever proposed. It has been under continuous attack ever since it was proposed. During this time, the creationists have tried every trick they can think of to get it out of the schools. They have blamed just about every evil of society on it, and they have brainwashed millions into believing that it's incompatible with their religion. They've tried to make it illegal, and they have even tried (unsuccessfully) to disprove it. And evolution has survived all of these attacks because it is true. You can always argue that the physical evidence doesn't accurately represent reality, and of course the creationists have tried that, but it's no use when they're arguing with proper scientists.

Given this, I don't think we need to worry about evolution at all. Sure, creationists would like it to be thrown away entirely, but as long as we have scientists, that simply will not happen. You just can't do useful research in any physical science if you think the Bible has greater authority than a ton of physical evidence. There are worse problems in public schools than a bunch of nutcases wanting their crazy beliefs taught as if they were science.

There is no evidence that will convince a creationist that he is wrong. If Jesus Christ personally appeared in front of John Q. Creationist and said "Hi, John. My name's Jesus, the Earth is billions of years old and evolution is basically true," then John Q. would probably crucify him for blasphemy. That's what the fundamentalists did, the last time Jesus told them they were wrong. "Everyone" knows that God couldn't have created the Universe using evolution: he's omnipotent, sure, but he's not that omnipotent. In summary, there is no point in trying to argue with these people, their beliefs are nuts even in comparison to other Christians, so let's just ignore them..

She said the concept of evolution is essential to understanding 21st century biology and that, in her opinion, "people who have never been taught evolution in the first place don't understand that it doesn't really undermine religion."
"I'm a lifelong Methodist and I find no conflict between my spiritual life and my rational, scientific self," she said.
Walker isn't alone.
The Clergy Letter Project, a Butler University initiative that works to dispel the notion that religion and science are at odds, has garnered 11,183 signatures from clergy members who say teaching evolution does not undermine religion.

Don't remember where I found this one but it seems to fit in with this thread.

Christianity

The belief that some cosmic, Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.Makes perfect sense.

"Evolution" is a proven fact. Organisms evolve over time. It has been documented, proved, case closed. Again: it is a fact that organisms evolve. Score one for science and zoology.

Now, the more complex question, why do certain evolutionary steps take place? That is subject to theory and speculation, research, anthropology, and study. Did human being evolve from "lesser" primates? Almost certainly, barring some unforeseen UFO landing (8 million years to earth -- Quatermas and the pit) or divine intervention, the fossil record is pretty conclusive.

What is most interesting is the path from lesser primate to our current form, we still do not know everything. For instance, it seems that perhaps the Neanderthals re-joined the genetic pool rather than simply die off.

The problem is that religious fools require absolute certainty in everything but religion. The evolution of human beings is far more proven then genesis, but they "believe" genesis as "gospel." So, evolution and the path between single cell life and 21st century human beings has to be 100% documented with no missing steps or ambiguous lineage or it is just a wild theory and therefor no more valid than what they already believe.

They are, by definition, unreasonable. Unfortunately, "unreason" is the common sense of the day because we "elite" thinkers don't represent "real" America.

but days of God, which are explained to be any length of time in two different places in the Bible.

In several places in the Bible it explains how the passage of time is not a factor to God as it is to us (a day is like a millenia, a millenia like a day), but it explicitly says in Genesis, after each day of creation, "And there was evening and there was morning, the Nth day." If you hand-wave away that phrase, then what else do you hand-wave away?

And there was evening and there was morning, the Nth day." If you hand-wave away that phrase, then what else do you hand-wave away?

Good point. The way I saw it was that God created light before the sun existed. The length of the time that light shown may have been much longer than 12 hours, and what I am suggesting is that it was millions or billions of years. Then when darkness happens, it is only for a short period. Analogous to how the world was in darkness for a short period until Jesus came, an

That would be a problem, considering that the sun was created only on the fourth day.

Which is, of course, a problem in itself because you have plants before a sun. Ignoring suggestions that God could sustain the plants without the sun, it is clearly contrary to any reasonable scientific sequence of events.

Bottom line is that Genesis has a lot of obvious problems if understood literally... the least of which is the length of a "day."

If you hand-wave away that phrase, then what else do you hand-wave away?

Easy. The Old Testament was originally written in ancient Hebrew which has no vowels. In order to read it, a Rabi would have to know the context of the words. When the Bible was translated into Latin and then into Vernacular one could say there is a bit of "finagalling" when it comes to terminology which somehow many people over look.

I forget the exact quote but I think in Psalms there is a part where they talk about the four corners of the earth and it being a sphere which many people like to point out as an example of the ancients knowing about the earth being round. But when you look the word up by its original definition in ancient Hebrew it translate as "Compass" which by all accounts and purposes was not a sphere in ancient Judea.

Others can point flaws to modern English translations such as the the Leviticus's part about homosexuality that there was no word for homosexual in ancient Greek. The literal translation meant "soft" or "feminine" which in ancient times more or less meant "weak willed".

The odd thing is that the Catholic Church and many Jewish Rabbis appear to have no problem with idea of evolution and big bang because they do not adhere to something that conflicts with the idea of genesis seeing that god could have used that as his method.

Ironically, most Christians who are literalists seems to ignore many of the dietary rules (Kosher, Parva, etc) set forth in the old testament that many modern Jews adhere (which also Muslims follow) and seem to not notice that Jews only read the bible in Hebrew due to the fact of the forementioned translation issues. My friend was raised conservative Jewish (not the orthodox) and she said even they would read the Torah in Jewish even in elementary bible study class at their synagogue as a young child.

Ironically, most Christians who are literalists seems to ignore many of the dietary rules (Kosher, Parva, etc) set forth in the old testament

It is not ignored, but they have determined that there are two types of laws in the old testament - the moral law (10 commandments) and the ceremonial law (those that you mentioned). The moral law stands for all eternity, but the ceremonial law ended when Jesus died on the cross.

The 6 days of Creation match up with science on the ball when they aren't literal days as we know them, but days of God, which are explained to be any length of time in two different places in the Bible.

Um, doesn't the Bible say that the Earth was here BEFORE there was light?

Um, doesn't the Bible say that the Earth was here BEFORE there was light?

Yes it does. But let's imagine for a moment that God is telling Moses the story of creation as though the observer's point of view were on Earth itself. The early solar system is coalescing into planets, the Sun, etc. When the Sun ignites the planets are already largely coalesced. The solar wind sweeps the system clear of the remaining gas and dust. So our (long-lived and surprisingly hardy) observer on the newborn Earth sees the Earth in the dark, then sees the Sun come in to view as it ignites and

The Bible WAS NEVER meant to be interpreted literally. That is a dangerous line of thought that only leads to denial. There are pagan stories that are disturbingly similar to those in the first five books of the Bible. THIS WAS NOT A MISTAKE. In fact, it was probably by design to win over those pagans. Bottom line is believing in one thing doesn't make the other less true. I'm sick of people trying to prove the existence of God. The Bible never asks for anyone to do this, and besides, if there is some omnip

It's only a compromise in the minds of the school board members. They probably went through the same Florida schools and came out with zero understanding of what scientific terms really mean."Theory" to them is supposed to lower the standing of the teaching of evolution, when in fact it will raise it if those same science classes teach accurate scientific terminology.

Ultimately, it brings evolution back into focus in schools while simultaneously showing the school board to be uneducated dweebs. Win/win as f